5 ms·

> I believe you're ignoring the overall point of the article, which is not that lead-acid batteries specifically are unworkable. Right, the point of the articl

by scythe 4y ago

> I believe you're ignoring the overall point of the article, which is not that lead-acid batteries specifically are unworkable. Right, the point of the article is that storage is unworkable, and lead-acid batteries are used therein as a straw-man. You underestimate how much time I've spent studying this, and how many times I've read that absolutely infuriating article. >He further goes on to discuss gravitational storage (e.g., hydroelectric dams and pumped storage), kinetic storage (e.g., flywheels), spring storage (e.g., compressed air), and chemical storage (e.g., batteries, fuel cells). But he does not discuss the most significant existing application of batteries for grid storage. So when he says this: >We can’t just scale up the current go-to solution for renewable energy storage He hasn't even considered it! Granted, Na-S currently lags way behind Li-anything in costs, but that's a result, mostly, of innovation aimed at cars.

jeffreyrogers 4y ago
I would be interested in seeing your calculations, but so far every time I've seen someone criticize the article you're referring to they refuse to do any calculations to support their argument. Or even to show where his calculations are erroneous. If storage is as workable as you say then it should be easy to demonstrate it mathematically.
- epistasis 4y ago
  "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." The argument is that these calculations are not relevant. That's the entire point of the original article that we are all posting under. Further, it's not even clear what calculation you want others to make. What's the question? Malthus made a correct calculation. But it was irrelevant, and led to a bad correction. There's a difference between what we calculate and what we want to know. And when that "calculation" is limited to simple napkin math, it's even less likely to be relevant or interesting to the real world. Taking simple physical limits and deriving calculations about the world has yet to offer insight about technological change. Perhaps one could do that to calculate a potential limit to Moore's law, by saying here's a minimum size of a transistor, and we are reaching thay. But what about going to more layers than we currently put in transistors, instead of simply shrinking the transistor size to increase transistor count in an IC?
- seoaeu 4y ago
  The calculation that actually matters is the amount of storage needed. Unfortunately, the article is extremely hand wavy about that part and so even though the cost estimate of storing a entire week’s energy consumption might not be far off, the conclusions drawn from it might be totally wrong

by scythe 4y ago

jeffreyrogers 4y ago

I would be interested in seeing your calculations, but so far every time I've seen someone criticize the article you're referring to they refuse to do any calculations to support their argument. Or even to show where his calculations are erroneous. If storage is as workable as you say then it should be easy to demonstrate it mathematically.

epistasis 4y ago
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." The argument is that these calculations are not relevant. That's the entire point of the original article that we are all posting under. Further, it's not even clear what calculation you want others to make. What's the question? Malthus made a correct calculation. But it was irrelevant, and led to a bad correction. There's a difference between what we calculate and what we want to know. And when that "calculation" is limited to simple napkin math, it's even less likely to be relevant or interesting to the real world. Taking simple physical limits and deriving calculations about the world has yet to offer insight about technological change. Perhaps one could do that to calculate a potential limit to Moore's law, by saying here's a minimum size of a transistor, and we are reaching thay. But what about going to more layers than we currently put in transistors, instead of simply shrinking the transistor size to increase transistor count in an IC?
seoaeu 4y ago
The calculation that actually matters is the amount of storage needed. Unfortunately, the article is extremely hand wavy about that part and so even though the cost estimate of storing a entire week’s energy consumption might not be far off, the conclusions drawn from it might be totally wrong